Screwtape and the Mormon Left

Personally I think we need more dialogue about our political ideologies, here is John Matos‘ take on how the modern Republic party may betray rather than represent our LDS values (using C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape to get his point across):

Dear Wormwood,

After so many years of moving the Church to the right of the political spectrum, Church members are beginning to discover the distinctly left of center teachings, history, and scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What are we conservatives to do? Some may point to influential right-wing leaders among the LDS community like Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, or even to our hero of the far-right, Glenn Beck, and say “The Church is firmly conservative and will remain so, so why worry?” To this I can only respond, “Open your eyes!” Mormons are beginning, little by little, to realize their own radical history, their own history of egalitarianism, their past leader’s exhortations for economic equality, and worst of all, the revealed scriptures that warn against materialism, individualism, war, and inequality. Why, in just a few short years, such groups as the LDS Left have seen their numbers grow and grow, even establishing a quarterly newsletter disseminating this information to those who may have gone so long unaware of it!

Now that I have hopefully scared conservatives into realizing the precarious condition our ideology is facing among the LDS population, let me reassure you that we have ways of preventing further enlightenment concerning LDS radical history, teachings and revelations. I would like to propose some solutions that will once and for all rid us of the pesky problem of a growing left leaning membership and firmly establish the wavering right-wing, conservative, and reactionary elements of LDS culture.
First we must consider what the dangers are that right-wing ideology faces among LDS membership. We must identify them so that we may confront them and eliminate them, beginning with the least dangerous and working our way to the most dangerous. The tricky part is that attacking them directly may bring attention to them. After decades of explaining away, dismissing, and then ignoring these elements of Mormonism, we have created a climate in which most members are not even aware of their own liberal and leftist roots. The challenge we face is preventing the rollback of this absence of self-awareness while making absolutely sure that in the process we do not reveal them to others who remain in blissful ignorance.

The least dangerous to our dominance in LDS political life is LDS history. This isn’t because LDS history is free of liberal, leftist and radical moments however. To the contrary, early LDS history is chuck full of such moments. Joseph Smith himself ran for President of the United States with a platform that included such liberal elements as peace through diplomatic efforts rather than war, prison reform and the elimination of the death penalty in all but the most extreme cases. Even worse, his platform included the establishment of a national bank.(1) As you may be realizing, how could we call prison reform “weak on crime” and denounce the nationalizing of the banking system as “Communist” or “socialist” without simultaneously slapping the founder of the LDS Church with the same labels? Now you see the danger, but do not fear. Over the years, we have dismissed these aspects of Joseph Smith’s ideology by simply not mentioning it, and over time the result has been that few people even know where to find this information.

All Things Common

From “The Fullness” Blog:

One of the primary markers of a true Zion community is the sharing of both spiritual and physical resources. As the title of this post suggests, the church of Christ founded after the visit of the Messiah to the Nephites treated the material possessions of the members as ‘common property.’ We read in Fourth Nephi of the establishment of this community:

…behold the disciples of Jesus had formed a church of Christ in all the lands round about. And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were baptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost.

And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. (4 Nephi 1:1-3)

This community, more than any other in the scriptures, enjoyed the ‘fruits of the Spirit’ and the bounty of the Lords blessings. In the description of their ‘continued peace in the land’ we read of the following attributes:

• All manner of miracles…among the children of men (verse 5)
• Rebuilt the great cities that were burned (verse 7)
• No longer followed the law of Moses (verse 12)
• Continued fasting and prayer (verse 12)
• Meeting together often to pray and hear the word of the Lord (verse 12)
• No contentions among all the people (verse 16)

Catholic & Mormon Concepts of Infallibility

A few thoughts from the Mormon Heretic:

I looked up “Infallibility”, and according to encyclopedia.com, “Roman Catholics hold that the infallibility of the church is vested in the pope…on matters of faith and morals. Definitive pronouncements resulting from an ecumenical council, when ratified by the pope, are also held to be infallible.”

In Official Declaration 1:12, Wilford Woodruff writes, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”

Is there a fundamental difference between these? Growing up in the church, I scoffed at this doctrine of infallibility, yet believed fervently that our prophet would never lead us astray. Now I’m beginning to wonder if these two doctrines are expressing the same thing.It is interesting to see the “Explanation of Papal Infallibility” on the Catholic Encyclopedia. It seems to tone done the rhetoric somewhat and says that yes, the pope can sin, but will never lead the church astray. It seems to whittle away at this controversial subject, making it sounds less controversial.  Also, the Catholic Answers website also seems to tone it down, and gets into whether the pope is giving his opinion or speaking for the church. The Catholic church seems to have had problems embracing modernism, and excommunicated some of its’ intellectuals, such as Galileo, who seemed to contradict official church teachings.  It seems easy for non-Catholics to reject this dogma.

Mormon Teachings on a Heavenly Mother

New Cool Thang asks what evidence we have of a Heavenly Mother:

Next year’s manual for Relief Society/Priesthood will be Gospel Principles, and chapter 2 begins with the following quote:

“All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. . . . Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” [1]

The concept of Heavenly Parents alludes to the teaching within the church that there is a Mother in Heaven. I went over a brief survey of statements regarding Heavenly Mother, mostly from the church website and magazines, and wanted to put up some characteristics that have been taught about her by prominent church members.

A Second Bill of Rights

When researching for his new documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story”, Michael Moore discovered video of a largely forgotten proposal by President Roosevelt, given shortly before his death, of a Second Bill of Rights. It was not intended to replace Jefferson’s original, but to supplement it. Yet it lapsed into obscurity.

I was wondering how the Church and its members would have take part in or opposed its provisions, and how it would have affected their religious, social and financial lives.

Gospel Principles Changes

I don’t normally post anything from an antagonist source, but I thought this was interesting enough, and devoid enough from anti-Mormon sentiment, to make it worth republishing here:

Note: The Gospel Principles manual will be the course of study for the LDS Church for the next two years.

The following are some notable changes between editions of Gospel Principles. The editions published are as follows: 1978, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1995, 1997, and 2009.

Underlined text marks something as new. Not all changes have been compiled, but only what seemed at least moderately notable. The most salient changes are marked in yellow. We recommend taking a special look at the changes made in 2009 to chapter 47.

Chapter 1 – Our Heavenly Father

1997 to 2009

God is the one Supreme and Absolute Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things (see Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 18–23) “the Great Parent of the universe,” and He “looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 39)…

Because we are made in His image (see Moses 2:26; 6:9), we know that God has a body that looks our bodies are like ours His body. His eternal spirit is housed in a tangible body of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22). God’s body, however, is perfected and glorified, with a glory beyond all description.

God is perfect. He is a God of righteousness, with attributes such as love, mercy, charity, truth, power, faith, knowledge, and judgment. He has all power. He knows all things. He is full of goodness.

All good things come from God. Everything that He does is to help His children become like Him—a god. He has said, “Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39)…

Joseph Smith—History 1:17 (Father and Son are separate beings)

Democracy or Dictatorship?

Rico at Mormon Matters relates some interesting information and comments related to the practice of Common Consent:

At 10:00am on a brisk August morning in 1844 Sidney Rigdon addressed the Saints.  Brigham Young spoke briefly before the break and at length in the afternoon, at which point they voted for a new leader.  Arrington notes that the response was almost unanimous, but the subsequent disaffection from the Church shows that not all was well in Zion[1].  This experience raises interesting questions for me about the role of Common Consent in the Church.  Seeing this is General Conference weekend (and we have just had a sustaining vote), I ask: Have we moved from a democracy to prophetocracy, and is this a bad thing?

“Evidence from accounts of some early meetings and conferences indicates that many of the New England leaders of the Church felt that the membership should be directly involved in decision-making meetings, including making motions on policy issues, following standard parliamentary procedure for public meetings, and voting to finalize decisions”[2][3].  Bushman argues that one unique feature of Mormonism was that revelation and governance came through councils, and this implied Common Consent [4].  Many of the revelations included in the D&C were written in and through Council meetings and then accepted by Common Consent [5].  It seems two converging cultures have emerged from this Brigham Young Mantle experience.

Would We Recognize the Early LDS Church?

In a similar vein to the last posting the Mormon Heretic wonders about why the modern Church is so different from the way it was at the beginning of this dispensation:

… If we moderns were to travel back in time, would we recognize them?

I’ve just finished reading Great Basin Kingdom by former Church Historian Leonard Arrington.  The book is subtitled “An Economic History of Latter-Day Saints 1830-1900″.  I liked the book, but it can get bogged down in the some boring economic details.  I was amazed to see how differently wards functioned than they do today.  It was interesting to see that Brigham Young tried a more limited form of Consecration.  Different forms of United Orders were established.  These are not exactly the same as the Law of Consecration, though there are quite a few similarities.

What Would Joseph Have Thought About the Modern LDS Church?

The Faithful Dissident asks some interesting questions about how different in some areas the modern Church’s teachings are from those of Joseph Smith:

I think what I loved best about Rough Stone Rolling by Richard L. Bushman was the theological aspect. Despite all his many flaws and troublesome practices and dealings in life, some of Joseph Smith’s theological writings and teachings blow me away. I’m not sure that I can believe them all, but I was astounded to read so many things that I had never heard of in my lifetime as a Mormon.

I sometimes get the feeling that the modern Church, while maintaining a thriving and rich culture, is lacking what it once had in terms of radical theological thinking and discussion. One could, of course, argue that this is a good thing. After all, many of us argue over what constitutes “official doctrine” and what doesn’t. Speculation can be a dangerous thing, as it leads to false doctrines and gives birth to cultural myths being accepted as truth. So the less there is to speculate on, the better, right? But I must say that I often feel that Mormonism today, as it is practiced and preached in church and everyday life, is so “contained” that it’s lacking in thought-provoking theological and philosophical discussion — at least if the official manuals are an accurate indication of the type of discussions that we have at church on a weekly basis. I wonder whether it’s only natural that the Church wouldn’t be able to maintain the pace of revelation and theological discussion that Joseph accomplished in his short life, or whether the modern Church feels too “settled” in a sort of “comfort zone” so that it is therefore cutting itself short on additional revelation.

Consecration or the United Order?

Mormon Heretic considers the differences and similarities between the United Order and Cosecration:

I always thought the United Order and Consecration were the same thing.  I’ve been reading a book called Great Basin Kingdom by Leonard Arrington (former church historian) and learned they are actually different.  The basic difference to me seems to be that with Consecration, one gave all they owned to the church, and then were given back “what they needed.”  With the United Order, it seems to have originated out of various economic cooperatives established to give fair, reasonable prices and jobs to the Mormons.  In some cases, saints could choose to consecrate all their possessions to the United Order, but usually it worked more in an economic cooperative, where fair prices were established for Mormons.  If they sold to gentiles, often the gentiles paid more.

The United Order movement was an extension of cooperatives.  These cooperatives began principally around 1868-1884, and were set up as a response to how current trading was accomplished.  In chapter 10 (page 193-194), Arrington says,

Structurally, most Mormon “cooperatives” were nothing more than joint-stock corporations, organized under the sponsorship of the church, with a broad basis of public ownership and support.  Functionally, however, most Mormon cooperatives appear to have been motivated principally by welfare rather than profit; patronage was an act of religious loyalty; the church participated  in the organization, operation, and financing of most o the important establishments; and the whole cooperative movement was permeated with an unmistakable pietistic zeal and feeling of religious obligation…

…most merchandising was in the hands of non-Mormons because of the stigma attached to “profiteering Saints,” and because of the inability of Mormon traders to refuse credit to their “brethren” and force payment of debts.